Using artifically made tornadoes to produce energy

I was looking at the weather network and found this amazing story. A Canadian engineer from Western University had created a way to harness the energy of artificially created tornadoes to produce electricity that is a cleaner form of energy and is less expensive.

I was looking at the weather network and found this amazing story. A Canadian engineer from Western University had created a way to harness the energy of artificially created tornadoes to produce electricity that is a cleaner form of energy and is less expensive.

Isn't there supposed to be a thing called Thermodynamic where you cannot generate more energy than you spend on things like mecanical movement?

I mean, how the hell does this thing is supposed to work? It's cool as ****, don't get me wrong. But it's rather a strange idea to get your head around.

Again, I don't know anything about this, and I can't read up on it until later.

But the general principal behind power plants isn't that they violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics; obviously that'd be impossible. All a power plant needs to do is convert more energy into a form that we know how to use (i.e. mechanical, electrical) than we started with in that form. The entire energy in the system remains constant -- energy is still lost as heat (that's usually the "entropy" the 2nd law refers to) -- but the amount the overall charge in our "batteries" goes up.

It's kind of like our power plants only accept dollars, but the entire transaction uses dollars and euros. Overall, the amount of money involved is constant, but we don't really care what happens with the euros as long as we end up with more dollars than we started with.

For power plants that rely on natural events like this, as long as your cost to create/maintain such an event still ends with a net profit in your "battery charge", you've got a feasible power plant solution. It might take a huge amount to create/capture a tornado in one of these plants, but as long as we're putting more energy into our batteries than the batteries started with, it's all good. Similarly, the costs of capturing and maintaining a waterfall are close to nil, so the "profit margins" for a hydroelectric power plant are pretty high.

This exact problem is actually what's holding up nuclear fusion power plants. We can fuse atoms together -- that's how hydrogen bombs work -- but it costs so much to do so that there's a net loss in our energy income.

I mean, the thing about many power plant is that there is a constant instream of energy that goes into the process which we convert into electricity. Be it fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas), wind, sun or radioactive elements.

Hell, even some of the power plants that don't necessitate "fuel" still have a sort of energy instream (I'm thinking geothermal, which harness the heat from inside the earth).

Where is the energy instream for that plan? I get that they focus a large quantity of hot humid air (which have obviously been heated through artificial means)... That necessitate a lot of energy, obviously. And this ALONE cannot create more energy than is being created. So where is the non-electric instream?

I mean, the thing about many power plant is that there is a constant instream of energy that goes into the process which we convert into electricity. Be it fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas), wind, sun or radioactive elements.

Hell, even some of the power plants that don't necessitate "fuel" still have a sort of energy instream (I'm thinking geothermal, which harness the heat from inside the earth).

Where is the energy instream for that plan? I get that they focus a large quantity of hot humid air (which have obviously been heated through artificial means)... That necessitate a lot of energy, obviously. And this ALONE cannot create more energy than is being created. So where is the non-electric instream?

Actually, no. I hardly see how converting wind into a tornado with a heat source is more efficient than your modern windmills.

Maybe have something to do with the potential energy of a large hot air mass locate on the ground level which would try to get up vs the movement of the cold air which wants to go down. With the Coriolis effect, these would create the whirlwind desired?

Again, I don't know anything about this, and I can't read up on it until later.

But the general principal behind power plants isn't that they violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics; obviously that'd be impossible. All a power plant needs to do is convert more energy into a form that we know how to use (i.e. mechanical, electrical) than we started with in that form. The entire energy in the system remains constant -- energy is still lost as heat (that's usually the "entropy" the 2nd law refers to) -- but the amount the overall charge in our "batteries" goes up.

It's kind of like our power plants only accept dollars, but the entire transaction uses dollars and euros. Overall, the amount of money involved is constant, but we don't really care what happens with the euros as long as we end up with more dollars than we started with.

For power plants that rely on natural events like this, as long as your cost to create/maintain such an event still ends with a net profit in your "battery charge", you've got a feasible power plant solution. It might take a huge amount to create/capture a tornado in one of these plants, but as long as we're putting more energy into our batteries than the batteries started with, it's all good. Similarly, the costs of capturing and maintaining a waterfall are close to nil, so the "profit margins" for a hydroelectric power plant are pretty high.

This exact problem is actually what's holding up nuclear fusion power plants. We can fuse atoms together -- that's how hydrogen bombs work -- but it costs so much to do so that there's a net loss in our energy income.

This is over my head. I wish I knew more about science but I have the scientific knowledge of a fifth grader if I am lucky.

I mean, the thing about many power plant is that there is a constant instream of energy that goes into the process which we convert into electricity. Be it fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas), wind, sun or radioactive elements.

Hell, even some of the power plants that don't necessitate "fuel" still have a sort of energy instream (I'm thinking geothermal, which harness the heat from inside the earth).

Where is the energy instream for that plan? I get that they focus a large quantity of hot humid air (which have obviously been heated through artificial means)... That necessitate a lot of energy, obviously. And this ALONE cannot create more energy than is being created. So where is the non-electric instream?

I thought they were planning to use the heat generated from a nuclear power plant? That's why they have a picture of a tornado over a nuclear silo, which makes this thing even more awesome!

But yeah there is an alternative energy thread in the science forum and I already posted this there.